Talk:Æthelred (archbishop)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 23:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming this now. Hope you don't mind me going for both of yours, but I do enjoy them. J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in the F version" What is meant by this?
"Æthelred also was urged, along with Archbishop Wulfhere of York, by Pope John VIII" Could do with rephrasing
"Most of Æthelred's time as archbishop was spent dealing with the effects of Viking raids, but he also had a conflict with King Alfred the Great over royal control of ecclesiastical affairs." Do we know any more about either of these things (and is the conflict mentioned the one talked about further down the article?)
"problem for the archbishop was a decline in the abilities of the scribes at Canterbury, which are dramatically illustrated by the document" Their abilities are dramatically illustrated? I'd say "which is dramatically...", referring to the problem. Perhaps you could say "Another problem for the archbishop was a decline in the abilities of the scribes at Canterbury; the issue is dramatically illustrated by the document, which has a number of errors and duplications."
The formatting on the two ODNB references is inconsistent

Obviously, the article is very short, but I am assuming that this is the extent of the information available. I came across this article, but I can't access it at all; the Google blurb suggests it may have some information of relevance. I also found a few mentions of coinage through Google scholar- for instance, take a look at this or this. Is that relevant? In an article so short, I don't think it could hurt. Hope this helps. J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should get to these later today. On the first article - I can't access it either (at least from home) but it's not shown up in any of my reading - so if I ever take the article to FA (not likely, but always possible) I'd pull it up. The coinage articles look to not have much new information to shed on Æthelred himself - they discuss coins issued in his name but they don't appear on first glance to have been anything out of the ordinary as far as coinage goes. Again - something that might bear working on if it was FA we were looking at, but given that they aren't unusual or different coins, not something that needs mention here, I'd think. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, think I got all of these - anything else? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm happy to promote at this time. We can't expect much more than this when there's so little information available; there's a good chance that these articles are the most comprehensive accounts of these archbishops available. Good work, as usual. J Milburn (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]